Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:37, 29 December 2007

Archives

Archive 1: Beginning of Time to 14 March 2007 (plus one comment by Ferrylodge on 27 September 2007).

Archive 2: 14 March 2007 to 14 May 2007.

Archive 3: 14 May 2007 to 15 June 2007.

Archive 4: 15 June 2007 to 11 September 2007.

Archive 5: 11 September 2007 to 13 November 2007.

Archive 6: 13 November 2007 to 30 November 2007.

Hey Ferrylodge!

Great to have you back on here! I was really quite upset at your ban. Hopefully you will stick around.

Anyway, I'm just stopping by to say hello. I hope you are doing well. --Eastlaw (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to echo Eastlaw. Aloha and Welcome back! --Ali'i 16:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Things didn't turn out quite as bad as they seemed to be heading, at the ArbCom. So, I'll hang around awhile longer, I guess.  :)Ferrylodge 18:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Controversies of Rudy Giuliani article

The Wasted Time R editor did not like the controversies article. A majority of other editors in the discussion agreed. Here is the article, prior to the deletion {via "redirect"} by another opponent of the article: .

So, now, people must hunt for controversial material in various articles, Rudy Giuliani, Giuliani Partners, Mayoralty of Rudy Giuliani, Political positions of Rudy Giuliani, Judith Nathan,

• Rudy Giuliani promotions of Bernard Kerik
• September 11, 2001 attacks
• his role in minimizing the dangers of the unhealthy air at Ground Zero, see Health effects arising from the September 11, 2001 attacks. Regards, Dogru144 (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I have not (yet) been involved in the Giuliani article. I merely pointed out that there is a third alternative, in addition to keeping or deleting a controversies article. That third alternative is to keep a list, as occurred for Clinton.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Mike Huckabee Merge Proposal

Please comment on merging Mike Huckabee controversies into Mike Huckabee here ] Jmegill (talk) 10:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems like it's already been merged, so there's nothing to comment about.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

"If available"

Yeah, I noticed that too late. A while ago someone stripped all non-linked and deadlink news sources from an articles I watch, saying that they weren't verifiable. I jumped to an unsupported conclusion, I'm sorry. Cool Hand Luke 00:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem. :)Ferrylodge (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing personal

Ferrylodge, just so you know, I have nothing personal against you or your editing. I just was unsure how to interpret Qworty's comment and figured someone who helped make the decision would know best. I know your position on this article is reasonable enough that it is open to debate by the community, otherwise I wouldn't have even entered into a dialogue. This time around though, we just happen to disagree. Cheers. Mbisanz (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope you see that Qworty was wrong about the ArbCom thing (among others).Ferrylodge (talk) 02:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm asking about that. It seems absurd on it's face, but they say "broadly construed," so it couldn't hurt to be safe. Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification. Seems to be intimidation though. Cool Hand Luke 02:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I have commented here.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see my question answered. WIthout knowing the context of the case, I never know if someone's summaries are correct. This time yours was, I apologize if this felt like post-arbcom hounding. Mbisanz (talk) 06:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Accepted. Thanks again.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm pretty satisfied by this answer. Although not from an arbitrator, I think that's the reaction most would have. It's certainly the reaction I had. I wish the remedy against you was clearer though. I fear remedies like this might someday lead to wheel warring (or at least the threat of it). Cool Hand Luke 23:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Good work on Romney

That's nothing. Actually writing a new section from whole cloth was the hard part. Your work helped finally get the article unlocked after almost 10 days (a very long time for a leading nominee, I think). I was pre-occupied with finals until today, but you've done great work on the article. Cool Hand Luke 08:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA

sknahT!  :) --Elonka 20:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Romney and Tvos

Please keep your commentary focused on the contributions rather than the contributers. See WP:CIVIL. If you think that Tvos has a conflict of interest, please talk to her or work it out on the WP:COI/N. Consider this a warning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cool Hand Luke (talk • contribs) 06:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I see that you've given a similar warning to Tvoz as well, for which I thank you. Tvoz has already used the Mitt Romney discussion thread to insinuate that I am engaging in a "campaign" for Romney, and to accuse me of attempting to "bury" material about Romney.

I did subsequently mention parenthetically to Qworty that Tvoz is not a Republican (as reported on page one of the Washington Post). I thought Qworty might find that interesting, seeing as how Qworty had already mentioned that he himself is not a Republican. I didn't mean to imply that Tvoz has any conflict of interest due to the fact that she is a Democrat.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I just want to note that Luke further addressed this matter here.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Ban?

I have requested clarification concerning your ban here. Please feel free to comment if you have information to share. --Yamla (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Request

I was wondering if you wouldn't mind moving the following section (Talk:Roe_v._Wade#.22Editorializing.22) to my talk page. It is apparently a personal message to me left on an article talk page. Thanks for understanding.-Andrew c  17:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Andrew c, as I mentioned in that section, I would be glad to continue the discussion at my talk page, or at your talk page. You asserted at the Roe v. Wade article that I was "editorializing" and "jabbing" you, and so I would like to be able to deny those assertions at the place they were made. Is there a problem with that?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you making trouble again? Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone is.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Howdy!

Welcome back to the community! :D Maser 06:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.  :-) Ferrylodge (talk) 06:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Dolphins

I wonder what would have happened if my user page looked a little different ;) I have always wanted to assume some character to play with peoples' heads. I left something at t:GW, take care, Brusegadi (talk) 20:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

3RR warning on Fetus

Please be careful about potentially violating the three-revert rule on the Fetus article. -- tariqabjotu 03:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll be careful.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom stuff

Hi. I'm feeling rather... um, unclean constantly participating in these discussions. Maybe you should take my former advice, which I was trying to give to myself (unsuccessfully) and just leave WP. It's really not worth it in the end; it's just a website, not the UN (though I'm not sure this isn't an improvement over the UN, at least in terms of both real-world effectiveness and sanity). Frankly, I don't know; go live your life elsewhere, pick your battles elsewhere. There's so much good you can do in life for so many people in so many ways (feed homeless, set up a family counciling center, etc.); Misplaced Pages seems to not be one of them. It's just not worth the vitriol on here, even if it means leaving articles to POV pushers. Anyway, I'm going to remove my last comment; I hope you understand. The Evil Spartan (talk) 23:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem, Evil Spartan. You can remove your comment, but I think it was an excellent and well-written comment, so I of course would prefer if you left it. You're right that there's an incredible amount of vitriol at Misplaced Pages, and POV pushers galore. Not a happy sight. I may stay and I may go. Who knows?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Re request

Sorry, but no I don't want to jump into a big dispute on the Mitt Romney article. I'm interesting in trying to write quality biographical material, and when something is unstable and in the middle of heavy edit wars it's hopeless. My general WP advice would be to find something that you're interested in but don't care passionately about and that isn't a hot button, and work on that. Otherwise one just goes crazy. One thing about political candidate articles is that they become much easier to work on when the candidate is down in the polls, e.g. the Giuliani articles are much quieter now than they were earlier in the year. So if you really care about Romney's article, come back to it after he's lost a couple of primaries and McCain or somebody else is hot again. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, Wasted Time R. You do good work, and I'll seriously consider your advice. It sounds kind of like the stock market: buy low. Anyway, I'm inclined to try a little bit more to work out the kinks at the Mitt Romney article, just because the "Political positions" section currently has so many problems (POV and otherwise). Anyway, thanks for taking the time to write back.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Featured Picture Nomination

Hi Ferrylodge,

Sorry, that original picture on the NASA site is also of insufficient size to qualify at FPC (as I think someone has already replied on the candidate page).

If you're interested in the FP process please feel free to spend a bit of time there and offer your 'votes' on images nominated. New (and sensible) contributors are always welcome. When you get a bit more of a feel for the criteria, you might find other images you feel are worthy, and with a bit of experience it's easier to not fall into the error of nominating something that is obviously outside the criteria.

If you find an image that you like, but aren't entirely sure whether it would qualify, it can be a good idea to nominate to Picture peer review first. There you'll tend to get a more friendly review of the image, rather than having people jump down your neck for not meeting size requirements, or something like that, which may not be immediately apparent to you ;-).

Cheers, --jjron (talk) 12:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Jjron, I appreciate the guidance. Happy Holidays!Ferrylodge (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI, someone at NASA has kindly responded regarding the Arctic shrinkage pic. See here. Happy New Year.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, again

I learned something today. I thought I'd mention it here because you, like myself, may not have precisely understood policy. I thought that 3RR was about repeated edits to the same material but it is about any edits in the same article. I didn't see that you had come close to 3RR because your edits were in completely different sections. But what matters is that they were in the same article. I thought that it was entirely reasonable that you revert a single time in each section. It showed good behavior that you did not repeat the reverts. But now that I correctly understand 3RR, I recommend that you use the talk page more and reverts less. If I were you I would revert no more than once a day. Remember that there are other editors who can fix things, too. You aren't the lone defender. If you mention something on the talk page instead of reverting it yourself other editors may do the reverting (as did in fact happen). Regards. Sbowers3 (talk) 15:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I think you might have a valid complaint about OrangeMarlin's harassment but you let yourself get sidetracked. Your incident report should have been strictly about his harassment but soon you started talking about the content of the article and that caused the discussion at ANI to degenerate into a discussion about your edits. You should have tried to focus on OM's harassment or incivility. E.g. your comment "He is insisting upon deleting longstanding accurate images at the fetus article, against consensus. Those images have been in the article for many months, and he has no consensus to delete them" was off-target. That's an argument about the content of the article and not about his harassment of you. And it caused the discussion immediately to switch into a discussion about your part in an edit war. ANI shouldn't be about edit wars (real or imagined) but it should be about uncivil behavior. If it's about edit wars you're probably not going to fare too well; if it's about OM's uncivil behavior you'd have a better chance of success.

FWIW, I do think that OM has been uncivil but it has been right on the edge - probably not bad enough to cause action. (Sadly a great many editors are uncivil but don't get warnings much less action against them. Conversely, I've occasionally seen complaints about mild remarks that I thought did not merit any complaint.) For incivility probably the best thing you can do is document (with diffs) each instance when it occurs and perhaps post specific warnings on the user's talk page. As for harassment, again documentation for possible future action may be the best you can do. I would try to ignore it at least until the evidence is too big to ignore. Right now, I'd say your evidence is at the "reason to believe" stage, not the "preponderance of evidence" stage, much less the "beyond all reasonable doubt" stage. Sbowers3 (talk) 15:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks SBowers3. That's good advice, as usual. I do feel like a "lone defender" of neutral material sometimes, especially when someone like OM starts attacking and driving away people who are trying to agree with me. Regarding 3RR, by any definition I have not violated it at the article in question. Happy Holidays!Ferrylodge (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You didn't violate 3RR but remember that "Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." In Fetus I don't think you were disruptive, but you are under closer scrutiny than most editors so it would be good to revert even less. Sbowers3 (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

BLP and POV edit warning

This is your first and only warning for violating BLP on Barack Obama. Your first three edits on the article were clear BLP violations for using an unreliable source that heavily edited a reliable source to advance a position and your final edit was a rewording of my fixing of your BLP violation is clearly pushing a POV as your source supports my wording in the first paragraph. You have been on wikipedia actively for well over a year and have edited enough "controversial" articles that you should know what WP:SYN and WP:BLP are and, frankly, I'm very concerned that I have to be warning you about BLP violations and POV editing at this point in your editing career. --Bobblehead 05:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Bobblehead, this is nonsense. I am trying to have a discussion with you at the pertinent article talk page, but you come here with accusations of BLP violations. Please try to Assume Good Faith.

If there was any editing of a reliable source, I absolutely did not realize it. Are you saying that USA Today also corrupted a reliable source?

And it is you (not I) who inserted this language into the article: "While the filibuster was unseccessful , Obama had previously predicted that the tactic would fail and criticized Democrats for making filibustering necessary by failing to convince the American public of the dangers Alito to their civil rights."

If we get past the misspelling, and the lack of predicate, where is this statement of yours supported by the cited source? I don't want to accuse you of a BLP violation, but you are not following the source. Your edit summary cites the first paragraph of the article as saying Obama thought a filibuster was needed or necessary. But the first paragraph of the article says, "To better oppose Supreme Court nominees, Democrats need to convince the public 'their values are at stake' rather than use stalling tactics, said Sen. Barack Obama, who opposes Samuel Alito's confirmation." Thus, he said that convincing the public is needed, not that filibusters are needed. Contrary to your edits, the article says Obama "agreed that it was not particularly wise" to conduct a filibuster. So please try to follow the sources, leave your POV out of it, and start assuming some good faith on my part. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent)Bobblehead's comments above include this: “Your first three edits on the article were clear BLP violations for using an unreliable source that heavily edited a reliable source to advance a position.”

I again kindly ask Bobblehead to reconsider and withdraw that false accusation. The so-called “unreliable source” is an Associated Press article here (including an attribution to the San Jose Mercury News at the bottom). That so-called "unreliable source" is verbatim identical to the same article published in USA Today. It is highly offensive for Bobblehead to accuse me of deliberately using an unreliable version of an article, and I consider it a personal attack.

I brought this to Bobblehead's attention at his talk page, and he refuses to discuss it.Ferrylodge (talk) 08:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful. I see that Bobblehead has crossed out part of his accusation. Now he says that my "first three edits" were a BLP violation, but he doesn't say why. Just wonderful.Ferrylodge (talk) 08:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this some sort of joke? A "first and only warning" for adding a statement saying Barak Obama engaged in a filibuster? Ferrylodge, they really are using BLP is a wrecking ball against you. The Evil Spartan (talk) 09:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. As best I can tell, Bobblehead has done this because "It was more Ferrylodge being Ferrylodge rather than an edit conflict". It's hard for me to know for sure, because Bobblehead has forbidden me to discuss it at his talk page. The article edit history and the article talk page show that I got out of Bobblehead's way, and let him do all the editing and use his preferred wording and his preferred sources, so I don't know how much more deferential I could have been.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Email to Ghostmonkey

I do hope you are not planning to canvass Ghostmonkey via email as per his talk page.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 09:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Alice, please Assume Good Faith. Thank you, and Happy Holidays.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Disclosure again

I just want to mention (again) that I have contributed in the current election cyle. Contributions to Thompson and Romney are the extent of my involvement so far, and I don't know if I'll vote for either one of them. My understanding is that this is not sufficient involvement to raise a conflict of interest at Misplaced Pages, and I will continue to try (and succeed) to be neutral and accurate in all my edits.Ferrylodge (talk) 08:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)